Was Frazier a shot fighter after he fought Foreman?

[elmersalsa]

Tony balanced the ledger though, when Joe got in over his head, the ref jumped right in to give him a bit of a needed breather.

Stooge 'referee' Perez' actions in giving Ali over ONE HUNDRED warnings for the same infraction WITHOUT EVER TAKING A SINGLE POINT AWAY FROM HIM made a farce out of that 'fight.'

A fight only a Thomas Hauserite could love.

Another great point. The great Thomas Hearns was warned not to hold the great Marvin Hagler's head by referee Richard Steele. While Ali does it with any fighter he pleases, and I DID NOT SEE NOT EVEN A WARNING? When the $$$$$ are in your face, of course, Ali got to have all the advantages.

Great is granberry...I agree with you 100%

[elmersalsa]

As we all know Joe Frazier was undefeated before fighting Foreman (29-0 with 25kos). After Foreman destroyed him Frazier only fought 7 more times going 3-3-1 (he was stopped in two of these)

Some say Frazier struggled to beat Bugner who he fought in his next fight after losing to Foreman the first time.
Do you think the beating he took from Foreman took something away from Frazier? Do you think the two wins Ali had over Frazier are slightly tarnished or was Frazier still the man he was before the Foreman fight?

The argument can be made and was made at the time that Frazier was never the same fighter after his first fight with Ali because it took so much out of him.

That argument would be entirely correct.

Foreman got a diminished Frazier in Jamaica. (sorry GI, but it is true and not sour grapes on my part)

Frazier summoned himself for a great effort in Manila, but he was never the same after the FOTC.

I say amen to that....Frazier was never the same destructible machine after the fight of the century with Ali. He looked TERRIBLE AND MEDIOCRE in the next 2 title defenses before Foreman.

I would have love to see the Joe Frazier prime of 1970-71 vs George Foreman prime 1973-74....Would have been a different fight? I think yes.

[yancey]

The argument can be made and was made at the time that Frazier was never the same fighter after his first fight with Ali because it took so much out of him.

That argument would be entirely correct.

Foreman got a diminished Frazier in Jamaica. (sorry GI, but it is true and not sour grapes on my part)

Frazier summoned himself for a great effort in Manila, but he was never the same after the FOTC.

I say amen to that....Frazier was never the same destructible machine after the fight of the century with Ali. He looked TERRIBLE AND MEDIOCRE in the next 2 title defenses before Foreman.

I would have love to see the Joe Frazier prime of 1970-71 vs George Foreman prime 1973-74....Would have been a different fight? I think yes.

[yancey]

The last two Frazier-Ali fights are only "epic battles"

in the minds of the Thomas Hauserites.

In reality they were mediocre heavyweight fights.

The 2nd --a sorry exhibition if there ever was one--was where stooge 'referee' Tony Perez gave Ali over 100 'warnings' for pulling Frazier's head down, without ever taking a single point away from Ali.

The 3rd was a fight between two shot fighters:

Frazier llooked like Archie Moore in his old age, with his legs locked at the knee so he could hardly move

and Ali couln't get out of the way of Frazier's left hook.

The first Ali-Frazier fight was the defining fight of Ali's career.

The two got into the ring as undefeated fighters.

Ali left the ring as a beaten fighter.

The walking army of Hauserites try to direct attention away from that by claiming the later two fights were significant--which they definitely were not.

I AGREE 100% with you granberry. Welcome back my friend

I also agree 100%.

Granberry is a great asset to BoxRec. He tells the truth and cuts through all the bullshit and made up hype.

That is why the Ali boot lickers have such a problem with him.

[ThatOne]

According to Granberry Frazier was shot at twenty nine and he doesn't own any of his losses after that but Ali was in his prime at 34, 36, and even 38 and owns those losses as if he was in his prime.

[Bricks]

As we all know Joe Frazier was undefeated before fighting Foreman (29-0 with 25kos). After Foreman destroyed him Frazier only fought 7 more times going 3-3-1 (he was stopped in two of these)

Some say Frazier struggled to beat Bugner who he fought in his next fight after losing to Foreman the first time.
Do you think the beating he took from Foreman took something away from Frazier? Do you think the two wins Ali had over Frazier are slightly tarnished or was Frazier still the man he was before the Foreman fight?

I wouldnt say he was shot as physically he was definetly still the same when he fought Ali in 1975.

What the Foreman loss did was destroy his beleif that he was invincible and super human.

I mean people forget that in his terrifying first title reign Frazier was every bit as intimidating and strong as Tyson in the late 80's . Than all of a sudden comes a ferocious steamroller in Foreman and suddenly Joe isnt so confident. I think that showed in his career thereafter.
Also the competition in the rest of the 70's was tougher, I know he couldnt fight some of these guys as they shared a trainer but Holmes, Norton and Shavers were tough men.

[granberry]

Yank Durham ran Frazier's corner in the first Frazier-Ali fight.

Yank Durham was dead by the time of the 2nd Frazier-Ali fight.

In his place was the treacherous Eddie Futch.

Yank Durham would never have allowed 'referee' Tony Perez to give Ali over 100 warnings for pulling Frazier's head down without ever taking away a single point.

And everyone knows what Futch did in the 3rd fight.

[Bricks]

i probably agree i dont think frazier was any nearer death than Ali in the third fight.
Still it must have been a horrific experience fighting at midday with your worst enemy in that climate.
Ive lived in that part of the world its horrible just walking around midday. U get fungus its so humid